On civil soceity

[Patroklus Murakami]

This thread reminds me of another one which Salzie started back in July, the link is [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 8:2td40o9t]here[/url:2td40o9t].

Salzie was suggesting that we should define what our mission is, now that the aims of our community (as quoted by Aliasi in her post above) have largely been met.

Following on from the discussion in that thread I'd like to propose that our mission should be:

[b:2td40o9t]"To forge a new form of immersive community that transcends national and geographical boundaries through the development and implementation of the principles of democratic self-government."[/b:2td40o9t]

And that our objectives should be:
[list:2td40o9t]Promotion of democratic forms of self-government in the Metaverse
Development of systems of conflict resolution true to the principles of freedom and justice which are appropriate for virtual worlds
Establishment of the CDS as a beacon for the arts, culture and education[/list:u:2td40o9t]

[Chicago Kipling]

I think this heads us back in a good direction. Thanks, Patroklus. The last two of the three sub-aims especially ring true in my mind. As Ashcroft noted somewhere in his original post, government is really only one part of a healthy democratic sim and making continued official recognition of that is important in my mind.

In that vein, I might suggest a broader initial statement that focuses more on building an ever more vibrant community that models the principles of democratic self-government, the practice of harmonious cooperation and something about pushing towards new horizons.

In either case, I think you're on the right track.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

Both Patroklus and Chicago's suggestions are very good indeed: it certainly helps to have an official statement somewhere about what exactly it is that we are seeking to acheive.

I have often suggested that a good publicity slogan for us would be, "[i:22khn6mk]Democracy, justice, commerce and community[/i:22khn6mk]", which seems to be a good summary of what both Patroklus and Chicago have suggested.

[Pelanor Eldrich]

Perhaps Arts, Sciences, Culture and the Humanities, Education and Commerce?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":2v1bvl5n]Perhaps Arts, Sciences, Culture and the Humanities, Education and Commerce?[/quote:2v1bvl5n]

"Arts, Sciences, Culture and the Humanities, [and] Education" are all part of "community"

[Patroklus Murakami]

"Democracy, Justice, Commerce and Community" works well as a slogan. Perhaps this could be on our coat of arms? Or do we already have a slogan?

Just to expand a little on the original title of this thread, I raised the issue of civil society at the last Citizens' Social Democratic Faction meeting because I was getting bored here! It felt like we had transformed into a debating club in the last few months and that all we talked about as a community was legislation and constitutional amendment. In other words we were focussing on refining our democracy and establishing a system for justice but missing out on promoting commerce and building our community.

I see 'civil society' as being all the non-governmental, community activity that takes place in a healthy society - community groups, special interest groups, religious and voluntary organisations. It seems to me that we focus almost exclusively on 'government' at the expense of these other, equally important aspects of community.

I also want to have a bit more fun, hence the proposal for a partipatory event of some kind. (And since noone showed up yesterday for the planning meeting, possibly because it was pretty short notice, I'll run it again next Sunday at 3pm in the Church). We definitely need to have more fun.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":hh5t3g5l]"Democracy, Justice, Commerce and Community" works well as a slogan. Perhaps this could be on our coat of arms? Or do we already have a slogan?[/quote:hh5t3g5l]

I thought that it was, "Ab ovo"? That is what it says under our coat of arms in the Rathaus.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1c6fefbb]This thread reminds me of another one which Salzie started back in July, the link is [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 8:1c6fefbb]here[/url:1c6fefbb].

Salzie was suggesting that we should define what our mission is, now that the aims of our community (as quoted by Aliasi in her post above) have largely been met.

Following on from the discussion in that thread I'd like to propose that our mission should be:

[b:1c6fefbb]"To forge a new form of immersive community that transcends national and geographical boundaries through the development and implementation of the principles of democratic self-government."[/b:1c6fefbb]

And that our objectives should be:
[list:1c6fefbb]Promotion of democratic forms of self-government in the Metaverse
Development of systems of conflict resolution true to the principles of freedom and justice which are appropriate for virtual worlds
Establishment of the CDS as a beacon for the arts, culture and education[/list:u:1c6fefbb][/quote:1c6fefbb]

I agree. I think a clarification of this kind would be helpful on many fronts: attracting new citizens, channeling our energy, and placating unnecessary arguments about what defines us a community. Hear hear!
I would also put in a word that the democracy et al. slogan is okay, though I prefer something more like "Democracy 2.0" or "Democracy for a world without boundaries" personally.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3usrca2r]I would also put in a word that the democracy et al. slogan is okay, though I prefer something more like "Democracy 2.0" or "Democracy for a world without boundaries" personally.[/quote:3usrca2r]

Why do you prefer a slogan that omits reference to justice, commerce and community?

[Fernando Book]

[quote:2fyk7bh1][quote:2fyk7bh1]Quote:
And you haven't addressed my concerns (that had nothing to do with computer code): we can't modify anyone rights[/quote:2fyk7bh1]
Of course we can. We can say "You have no right to build in a modern architectural style in Neufreistadt". [/quote:2fyk7bh1]
Ashcroft, be serious. Our covenant has nothing to do with rights: free speech, life, freedom of movement, property, association... City architectural regulations have the same to do with rights as IKEA catalogue.
[quote:2fyk7bh1]
Why do you ignore the important things to which I made reference above, that is fraud, breach of conract, IP violations and defamation? [/quote:2fyk7bh1]

Because I don't think these things are important -here and now. I don't see the huddled masses knocking on our door asking for the rule of law as a new Gospel; in fact, outside these four virtual walls (and sometimes inside them) I perceive a lot of interest in our experiment on democracy and a lot of reluctancy on our experiment on law.
More, how can we deal with IP violations whe the City ToS states
[quote:2fyk7bh1]12. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION. Our policy is to not respond to notices
of alleged copyright infringement. Questions concerning copyright
should be addressed to Linden Labs the company which provides our
supporting infrastructure. [/quote:2fyk7bh1]
More, how can we sanction without a penal code if the UDHR, that our government must uphold, states in article 3, paragraph 2:
[quote:2fyk7bh1]No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.[/quote:2fyk7bh1]
[quote:2fyk7bh1]What sort of aim would you like to see achieved?[/quote:2fyk7bh1]
Any aim. We are feeding back ourselves with legislation, and legislation on legislation, and sometimes I see ourselves like running the Alice in Wonderland caucus-race. And at the same time, the Colonia Nova sim is being built thanks (as Gwyneth brought here quoting Toffler) to an 'adhocracy'.

[quote:2fyk7bh1]The index of success that I suggest in my original post is the extent to which we succeed in building a cohesive civil soceity, in which the principles of community spirit, democratic participation in decisionmaking and the rule of law stand together to promote the interests of all.[/quote:2fyk7bh1]

Can you bring three examples on how to check in a year if we have succeed in any of this aims?
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2fyk7bh1][quote="Fernando Book":2fyk7bh1]It's fun, it's very interesting, but sometimes I think it's a bit useless.[/quote:2fyk7bh1]
[quote="Ashcrof Burham":2fyk7bh1]Then why did you join in the first place?[/quote:2fyk7bh1]
[quote="Fernando Book":2fyk7bh1]Because it's fun, it's very interesting, I like debates, I like politics, I have some free time, I like useless things...
But the problem, Ashcroft, is that your question is the kind of question you make to an unwanted visitor in a party. Is this your party?[/quote:2fyk7bh1]
Why is that a problem?
[/quote:2fyk7bh1]
Because asking someone why has he come is the first step to asking him to leave.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1lvlldum]
Indeed, were that not the case, the whole enterprise would be pointless: democracy is only any good at acting as a check on real governmental power, and [b:1lvlldum]there is no real governmental power if the government does not do anything.[/b:1lvlldum]
[/quote:1lvlldum]

(emphasis added) (whistles innocently)

[quote:1lvlldum]
Why do you exclude the possibility that useful things can be accomplished on the forums themselves?[/quote:1lvlldum]

Two years of practical experience.

[Tad Peckham]

[quote:10464o11]This is not a proper means of addressing what I posted: I did not mention complexity above. If you do not believe that stability, unity and the rule of law entails complexity, then your point is utterly irrelevant to what I wrote above, and it was wholly wrong for you to have posted it here. If you do accept that stability, unity and the rule of law entails complexity, then, either you disagree that we should have stability, unity and the rule of law, or you accept that we must have complexity. In the former case, you would need to set out reasons why, exactly, stability, unity and the rule of law are not desirable characteristics. If you cannot do that, then how can you honestly claim that you are opposed to what they entail?[/quote:10464o11]

i think, what it comes down to ashcroft is that i am tired of you constantly grandstanding your own social and political adgenda for neufreistadt. for that, i am sorry for posting in this thread. maybe my thoughts would have more appropriately posted elsewhere. i am not sorry however, for thinking that a complex system of law and government for 49 people is not needed. i think such complexity for so few people comes with serious risks: one of which being alienation. of course, i'm sure you will just say that's just a bland assumption on my part. so be it.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":njrrp3hx][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":njrrp3hx]I would also put in a word that the democracy et al. slogan is okay, though I prefer something more like "Democracy 2.0" or "Democracy for a world without boundaries" personally.[/quote:njrrp3hx]

Why do you prefer a slogan that omits reference to justice, commerce and community?[/quote:njrrp3hx]

Leave it to you to pull criticism out of a suggestion. Why do YOU prefer a slogan that omits reference to truth, compassion, peace, sustainability, human rights, freedom, love, tolerance, hope, creativity, unity, generosity, and education? Obviously the omission of these virtues from our slogan is intolerable!

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote:35jv65px]Ashcroft, be serious. Our covenant has nothing to do with rights: free speech, life, freedom of movement, property, association... City architectural regulations have the same to do with rights as IKEA catalogue.[/quote:35jv65px]

What kind of a bizarre conception of a [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#2.1:35jv65px]right[/url:35jv65px] are you using here?

[quote="Fernando Book":35jv65px]Because I don't think these things are important -here and now.[/quote:35jv65px]

Why not?

[quote:35jv65px]I don't see the huddled masses knocking on our door asking for the rule of law as a new Gospel[/quote:35jv65px]

Do you seriously think that that would happen how ever important that the rule of law is?

[quote:35jv65px]in fact, outside these four virtual walls (and sometimes inside them) I perceive a lot of interest in our experiment on democracy and a lot of reluctancy on our experiment on law.[/quote:35jv65px]

What on earth makes you think that they are conceptually capable of being separated? Democracy is [i:35jv65px]about[/i:35jv65px] lawmaking institutions, and democracy is impossible without the rule of law. Moreover, there has been a great deal of interest in our ability to render contracts enforcable, for example.

[quote:35jv65px]More, how can we deal with IP violations whe the City ToS states
[quote:35jv65px]12. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION. Our policy is to not respond to notices
of alleged copyright infringement. Questions concerning copyright
should be addressed to Linden Labs the company which provides our
supporting infrastructure. [/quote:35jv65px][/quote:35jv65px]

We need to change that: thank you for spotting it. But nothing in our constitution requires the Courts of Common Jurisdiction to regard the CDS terms of service as a source of law. The position is, therefore, that that has hitherto been our policy, but is no longer.

[quote:35jv65px]More, how can we sanction without a penal code if the UDHR, that our government must uphold, states in article 3, paragraph 2:
[quote:35jv65px]No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.[/quote:35jv65px][/quote:35jv65px]

Actually, the position is that the Scientific Council has the power to veto primary legislation if it contradicts the UNHDR. Nowhere is it provided that the Courts of Common Jurisdiction (or even the Court of Scientific Council) must regard the UNHDR as a source of law. In any event, we do, as in any common law system, have a rule that gives judges a discretion in novel cases, but requires them to be bound in later cases. That [i:35jv65px]is[/i:35jv65px] our rule. It always has been.

[quote:35jv65px]Any aim.[/quote:35jv65px]

Don't be silly - not all aims are good.

[quote:35jv65px]We are feeding back ourselves with legislation, and legislation on legislation, and sometimes I see ourselves like running the Alice in Wonderland caucus-race.[/quote:35jv65px]

Any government is frequently putting out legislation: that is its job. Merely because the government is concentrating on governing does not mean that citizens cannot, within the framework that has been established and is being developed by government, do something else useful. Those who run the MoCA, for example, are doing just that.

[quote:35jv65px]And at the same time, the Colonia Nova sim is being built thanks (as Gwyneth brought here quoting Toffler) to an 'adhocracy'.[/quote:35jv65px]

Colonia Nova is being built by a committee created by our governing institutions to discharge the functions that it is now discharging. It is most certainly not ad hoc.

[quote:35jv65px]Can you bring three examples on how to check in a year if we have succeed in any of this aims?[/quote:35jv65px]

What is special about the number three? Why should [i:35jv65px]three[/i:35jv65px] examples be necessary? That number seems to me to be entirely arbitrary.

[quote:35jv65px]Because asking someone why has he come is the first step to asking him to leave.[/quote:35jv65px]

Why must that follow in every case? The question was to show the fact that your words did not match your actions.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":bv3mrd9n]Two years of practical experience.[/quote:bv3mrd9n]

Why have you excluded from your experiences all the work that went into designing the judiciary on the forums, for example?